The anti-gay activist was even further dispirited by the charity World Vision’s decision – since reversed – to recognize the marriages of its gay employees. Speaking with talk show host Janet Mefferd yesterday, LaBarbera told evangelicals that you can’t “call yourself a Christian” and also support “redefining marriage to accommodate a sexual sin.”

When Mefferd asked him whether he thought controversies like the one over World Vision’s treatment of gay employees would become more common, LaBarbera responded, “Yeah, I think a lot of evangelicals are going to sell out.”

“I’m afraid were going to see evangelicals either opting out of this issue entirely…or, even worse than that, we’re going to see evangelicals getting behind the idea of natural gay identity and even so-called homosexual marriage,” he said.

“And that’s a sad thing,” he continued, “because if you’re going to call yourself a Christian, don’t get behind non-Christian or anti-Christian ideas. Struggling with homosexuality is one thing – many people struggle with sins – but proudly defending homosexuality and even redefining marriage to accommodate a sexual sin is quite another.”

After Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant came on the show to receive Gohmert’s plaudits, the congressmen called the anti-gay law “a wonderful example of real freedom” and attacked gay rights critics as intolerant: “You’ve seen it first hand, there is nobody more intolerant in this country than those that are screaming for tolerance. Christians are not intolerant but whoa, goodness these people that have their leftist agenda that are so intolerant so thanks for having the courage to stand up.”

Gohmert: I sure am proud of Mississippi.

Perkins: It’s good to be here in Mississippi, in fact the governor has just joined me here in the studio. Great leadership team in Mississippi.

Gohmert: Well he could probably care less of what Louie Gohmert thinks but I am sure proud of Mississippi.

Perkins: He says he’s a fan of Louie Gohmert.

Bryant: Absolutely.

Gohmert: We are so proud of Mississippi and what they’ve done.

Perkins: Here’s my co-host Gov. Bryant.

Gohmert: Governor, we are so proud, you have set such a wonderful example of real freedom. You’ve seen it first hand, there is nobody more intolerant in this country than those that are screaming for tolerance. Christians are not intolerant but whoa, goodness these people—

Bryant: It is the world of bizarro.

Gohmert: These people that have their leftist agenda that are so intolerant so thanks for having the courage to stand up.

RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.

Every time we think we are tired and bored from hearing the constant complaints from far-right pundits about how President Obama is a communist tyrant, they always seem to find new ways to entertain us. Maybe they will eventually move on to more pressing issues, like Satan’s use of graham crackers to advance homosexuality.

5. Satanic Graham Crackers

Joining other anti-gayactivists calling for a boycott of Honey Maid graham crackers because of a TV ad featuring a gay couple, the American Decency Association said this week that the company’s “This Is Wholesome” ad is proof of Satanic deception: “Satan wants us to see sin as normal and not so bad…. Honey Maid and others are putting two moms in a same-sex relationship. They are making two dads to seem normal. Both are wrong; both are unwholesome; both run contrary to the Word of God.”

The group adds:

It’s not a matter of acceptance; it’s a matter of an evil agenda which is being pushed upon America and around the world. Satan continues to attack God’s design and skew it to his own workings. He continues to take words like “wholesome” and “family” and twist them for his own purposes. He takes a symbol of God’s promise (the rainbow) and hijacks it, twisting it to his own design. Satan calls it normal; God calls it sin. We live in a day when “evil” is called “good” and “good” is called “evil.” That which is meant to glorify God (family, the church, etc) is being taken and bent out of shape until it is hardly recognizable.

Liberty Counsel attorney Matt Barber’s weekly columns are so consistently ridiculous (and unintentionally hilarious) that they seem to be written by a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad. Barber didn’t disappoint with his latest commentary accusing President Obama of bringing communism to America.

“[N]early every adult who, at any time, was in any position of influence over a young, soon-to-be-radicalized Barry Soetoro was an avowed communist,” Barber writes. “To all this I say, if the jackboot fits, wear it. If it quacks like a commie and goose-steps like a commie, then a commie it is.”

He concludes by calling for a revolt against Obama: “We are no longer the United States of America. We have become The Communist States of America. Which means, for those who love liberty, revolution is once again at hand.”

3. Tea Party Group Embraces ‘Sandy Hook Truthers’

The National Liberty Foundation, a Florida-based Tea Party group, is now pushing the latest “Sandy Hook truther” conspiracy that President Obama orchestrated the school shooting in order to justify a crackdown on gun rights: “This my dear friends was all staged… we didn’t believe it at the time, but this is how far your president went to get your guns…. Don’t let anything he does surprise you… He wants to be a dictator, he doesn’t want to get out of the White House and he loves spending your money… Hmmm, I wonder where their off to next?”

The group posted an image of a the razed Sandy Hook elementary, which was demolished after the town voted to tear down the school, to claim that the administration is “destroying the evidence.” The group also advanced the conspiracy theory that the same female actress was photographed at the Sandy Hook, Aurora and Boston Marathon bombing aftermaths.

Raw Story notes that the Tea Party group also “questioned whether Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 was hijacked and taken to a ‘secret U.S. military base on a remote island in the Indian Ocean.’”

Fox pundit Todd Starnes called the report “indisputable proof that the Obama Administration is destabilizing the nation by allowing hordes of dangerous illegal aliens to invade the country,” telling listeners of his radio bulletin to “be prepared to take whatever measures necessary to protect your family and your home.

This is not a time to be politically correct so here’s the cold hard reality - the United States is being invaded. And the Obama administration has been complicit in the invasion. Instead of repelling the invasion, the Obama administration is welcoming the invaders with open arms and providing them food stamps, driver’s licenses and health insurance.

Now we know how the Ukrainians feel.

It’s beyond frightening to imagine that our own government as unleashed this kind of evil on our streets. And heaven forbid, these illegals harm our wives and children. Should that happen, their blood is on the Obama Administration’s hands.

As Media Matters hasdocumented, Starnes was not the only Fox commentator to use the report to promote anti-immigrant views.

However, Fox News Latino pointed out the serious flaws in the report, which unfortunately will go unnoticed by most Fox viewers.

Alan Keyes has been organizing a campaign to call on congressional candidates to pledge to support the impeachment of President Obama, and is now citing the recent Fort Hood shooting in an effort to boost his impeachment efforts.

Of course Keyes offers no evidence to prove that officials were deceiving the public about the attack, but nonetheless demands that Congress impeach and remove Obama before he turns the US into a communist dictatorship.

The stories report that “officials” are saying that there was no indication that the second shooting spree at Fort Hood was terrorism-related. They say that “Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, III Corps commander at Fort Hood, said the shooter was a soldier who was under evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder.” They say that “the shooter, identified as 34-year old Ivan Lopez, is among the dead.”

So they say. But these days what brain-functional person believes what officials, even those in high positions of responsibility, say about events like this. Just yesterday, April 2, I was reading about Michael Morell, a former deputy director at the CIA, who told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence “that the CIA ignored a key piece of information that was the exact opposite of what then-U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice told the American public” about the attack on U.S. personnel in Benghazi that took the life of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, among others.

The information came from CIA officers on the ground in Libya, but Morell said “he did not believe there had been no protests because there were press reports describing protests.” What if the III Corps commander is saying there was no terrorism involved in the latest Fort Hood shootings because the people briefing him have read press reports saying there was no terrorism involved in the latest Fort Hood shootings?

That’s the problem with living in a media whirl where everything is being fabricated by people who believe that there is no “truth,” that it’s all relative to someone’s point of view. Of course that includes the bureaucrats’ concern with how others may react to what the facts say about their competence; the military officers’ view of how others will judge their fitness for command; the appointed government officials’ view of whether and how others will upbraid their policies; and the elected politicians view of how their backers will view their viability in the next election.

…

Moreover, when the power to fabricate information is comprehensively monopolized over several generations, as it was in the heyday of Communist Party dictatorship in the old Soviet Union, the time comes when people at large resign themselves to the fact that their peaceful daily existence depends on conforming to whatever “truth” those in power are determined to impose upon them.

…

In America we are still supposed to be able to do “the natural thing.” But how many of us discern the fact that our nation is now on the brink? One fact about the latest attack at Fort Hood should awaken us: “While it was happening, soldiers began jumping over fences to escape the attacker.” All were told to “Close your windows! Seek shelter immediately.” So thanks to the lie that guns kill, we lose the lives of people trained in using them to stop the real killers.

…

So what do you think they mean to do to the people at large, as they collude to disarm us and make us dependent on their commands for our life and health and daily bread, as Soviet citizens were dependent on their party bosses and bureaucrats? Until and unless we dramatically signify that we have not forgotten the allegiance to self-evident truth that has been the foundation of our nation’s exceptional character, we are doomed to be consumed by lies, just as they were.

But unlike them, we can still do the natural thing (i.e., the thing we are entitled to do, by “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”). As citizens we can use our votes to send a simple message to our elected representatives: “The purveyors of the culture of lies, behavioral cowardice and death must go, along with all of their collaborators, or else we will dismiss you.”

I see only one movement under way that rejects the vocationally political culture that now predominates in both so-called “major” political parties. It is the congregation of those who have pledged to use their vote to energize the political will needed to impeach and remove Obama from power, by constitutional means, along with his henchmen and collaborators,. Have you informed yourself about this movement? Have you signed on? Or are you content simply to cooperate with the twin-party sham, thereby proving that Americans, too, have now “lost our strength, our pride, our passion” for truth, justice and the liberty of our republic?

Even though the right-wingconspiracytheory about President Obama handing over control of the Internet to foreign powers has been completely discredited, the myth continues to survive among conservative activists and Republicans in Congress, who have seized upon the debunked claim to attack the Obama administration.

GOP congressmen are more than happy to help. Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois told WND that Obama is helping “authoritarian governments” push “their anti-freedom agendas” on the Internet, while Tennessee’s Rep. Marsha Blackburn warned that Obama’s move “will allow countries like China and Russia that don’t place the same value in freedom of speech to better define how the Internet looks and operates.”

But Republicans and right-wing activists don’t seemed to be bothered by the fact that the administration’s decision actually represented a rebuke to countries like Russia and China, and are more than happy to gin up fears that Obama is paving the way for the censorship of the Internet.

It took just days for more than 113,000 people to sign a petition by the American Center for Law and Justice opposing the plan.

Members of Congress confirmed that in just the past few weeks, some of the possible members of the multinational body — including Russia, Turkey, China and Malaysia — either have censored the Internet in their own nations or vowed to do it.

“This isn’t a theoretical debate,” warned Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., one of several lawmakers working on one of the legislative plans.

“There are real authoritarian governments in the world today who have no tolerance for the free flow of information and ideas,” Shimkus said. “What possible benefit could come from giving the Vladimir Putins of the world a new venue to push their anti-freedom agendas?”

…

“This decision represents another hostile step by the administration on the heels of net neutrality and the FCC’s CIN Study that threatens our freedom of speech. Giving up control of ICANN will allow countries like China and Russia that don’t place the same value in freedom of speech to better define how the Internet looks and operates,” she warned.

The American Center for Law and Justice, which organized the petition effort, said the Obama administration is pushing into dangerous territory.

“This move would put the online liberty of Americans at great risk,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ. “By turning over this key oversight to an international community – which is likely to include countries hostile to America – the world’s most powerful instrument of free speech would be subject to censorship, could be taxed, and would make it easier for cyber-fraud schemes to expand in countries around the globe.”

Sekulow said the “success and freedom of the Internet would be in grave jeopardy if the Obama administration is allowed to carry through with its plan to turn over control of the Internet to a ‘multinational’ body.”

“Free speech is at the core of our Constitution. We’re working with members of Congress on legislation to keep the Internet – and our free speech – free,” he said.

Pat Buchanan is onceagain fawning over Russian leader Vladimir Putin. In a column today, “Is God Now On Russia’s Side?,” Buchanan hails Putin for leading “the counter-reformation against the new paganism” and “the same-sex-marriage pandemic.”

“In the culture war for the future of mankind, Putin is planting Russia’s flag firmly on the side of traditional Christianity” and against “the West’s capitulation to a sexual revolution of easy divorce, rampant promiscuity, pornography, homosexuality, feminism, abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, assisted suicide – the displacement of Christian values by Hollywood values,” Buchanan writes.

With Marxism-Leninism a dead faith, Putin is saying the new ideological struggle is between a debauched West led by the United States and a traditionalist world Russia would be proud to lead.

In the new war of beliefs, Putin is saying, it is Russia that is on God’s side. The West is Gomorrah.

…

Putin is entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly City of today and command post of the counter-reformation against the new paganism.

…

He is also tapping into the worldwide revulsion of and resistance to the sewage of a hedonistic secular and social revolution coming out of the West.

In the culture war for the future of mankind, Putin is planting Russia’s flag firmly on the side of traditional Christianity. His recent speeches carry echoes of John Paul II whose Evangelium Vitae in 1995 excoriated the West for its embrace of a “culture of death.”

Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum writes that she was stunned when in Tbilisi to hear a Georgian lawyer declare of the former pro-Western regime of Mikhail Saakashvili, “They were LGBT.”

“It was an eye-opening moment,” wrote Applebaum. Fear and loathing of the same-sex-marriage pandemic has gone global. In Paris, a million-man Moral Majority marched in angry protest.

…

But the war to be waged with the West is not with rockets. It is a cultural, social, moral war where Russia’s role, in Putin’s words, is to “prevent movement backward and downward, into chaotic darkness and a return to a primitive state.”

Would that be the “chaotic darkness” and “primitive state” of mankind, before the Light came into the world?

This writer was startled to read in the January-February newsletter from the social conservative World Council of Families in Rockford, Ill., that, of the “10 best trends” in the world in 2013, No. 1 was “Russia Emerges as Pro-Family Leader.”

In 2013, the Kremlin imposed a ban on homosexual propaganda, a ban on abortion advertising, a ban on abortions after 12 weeks and a ban on sacrilegious insults to religious believers.

“While the other superpowers march to a pagan worldview,” writes WCF’s Allan Carlson, “Russia is defending Judeo-Christian values. During the Soviet era, Western communists flocked to Moscow. This year, World Congress of Families VII will be held in Moscow, Sept. 10-12.”

“Freedom is hanging on by a thread, America, and it is those who worship the sin of Sodom that are determined to finish it off once and for all,” he warns.

Barber’s post even contains a pertinent illustration:

Sadly, many people, even many Christians, think that I and others are using hyperbole when we refer to this sexual anarchist “LGBT” movement as “homofascist” or the “Gaystapo.” I hope you’ll think again. It’s time to wake up and smell the impending anti-Christian persecution. It’s fully at hand.

….

Do you see what’s happening? Did you read that? That’s fear — deathly fear. Fear of a radical, hateful, intolerant, obnoxious, fascist, evil and power-crazed group of sex-obsessed anarchists who demand that we all affirmatively celebrate their deviant and self-destructive sexual sins and unnatural perversions.

Christians, buckle up. Your whole world is about to change. The Rainbowshirts are emboldened and they’ve broken out the long knives. “Therefore pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence” – Psalm 73:6.

They smell blood in the water. I’ve often said that these folks want those who speak Biblical truth about human sexuality and legitimate marriage either 1) dead, 2) imprisoned or, if they can have neither of these, 3) marginalized to the point where they can’t even support their families.

Check No. 3 off the list. I guess they’re working backwards.

Freedom is hanging on by a thread, America, and it is those who worship the sin of Sodom that are determined to finish it off once and for all.

But Barber isn’t the only one who has Hitler on the mind. In a blog post for the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), J.C. von Krempach writes that gay rights advocates are perpetrating “a soft form of terrorism” and have become “the new Nazis.”

“This is exactly how Communism operated. This is exactly how Nazism operated (at the time when it was not yet powerful enough to send its opponents into gas chambers). This is exactly what the Taliban do,” he writes.

Like Barber, Krempach warns that “if we allow the same-sex lobby to continue in this way, it is the era of freedom and democracy that will soon be over.”

Now, five years later, the same-sex-mafia goes after those who at the time have, in a perfectly legitimate, civilized, and democratic way stood up for marriage. The movement that has built all its political success upon whining about perceived discriminations, and on asking that society should become more "tolerant", "open", etc. turns out to be the most bigoted, intolerant, irrational, hate-driven, spiteful, and narrow-minded of all social groups. They are unfit for democracy, unfit for dialogue, incapable to base their opinions and claims on any rational argument; this is why their modus operandi consist of nothing else than bullying and, increasingly, of a soft form of terrorism.

It is time for the rest of us to wake up. Tolerating the same-sex movement has been a very bad idea. You cannot tolerate what undermines democracy and ultimately destroys society. The same-sex lobby are the new Nazis.

Their strategy consists simply in intimidating possible opponents. The vicious campaign against Brendan Eich is ultimately directed not only against him, but it sends a message to anybody who has not yet submitted to the dogma of same-sex bigotry: we will go after you, and we will destroy you. So you better do not dare express your true opinion on same-sex "marriage".

This is exactly how Communism operated. This is exactly how Nazism operated (at the time when it was not yet powerful enough to send its opponents into gas chambers). This is exactly what the Taliban do.

…

The gay and lesbian Ku-Klux-Klan does not want rational argument, because it is well aware that on the battlefield of rational thought they would never be able to prevail.

…

If society finds the means to defend free speech and democracy, the same-sex "marriage" movement will break down within five minutes. But if we allow the same-sex lobby to continue in this way, it is the era of freedom and democracy that will soon be over.

Unlike the straight couples on the sitcom who “bicker and fight all the time,” Fischer said, the gay couple and their daughter are portrayed like they’re living in “paradise.”

“It’s the Garden of Eden, it’s paradise, they are tiptoeing through the tulips, everything is wonderful,” he said, warning that the show makes people who “have a marriage of one man and one woman and are happy with each other” seem like “Neanderthals.”

In our round-up of Grothman’s extremism we mentioned a speech he gave to a 2010 Tea Party rally, in which he claimed that “gals” are unfairly getting promoted ahead of men when really “in the long run, a lot of women like to stay at home and have their husbands be the primary breadwinner.”

He also blamed the downfall of America on single mothers on public benefits, even though he claims to have met many single moms while protesting outside abortion clinics: “Now, I know a lot of gals who are having kids out of wedlock, and I love them. I’ve been outside abortion clinics, and I’ve encouraged them.”

“Our country is not going to survive if we continue this war on men,” he concludes.

Although Grothman’s speech has been reported on a number of Wisconsin blogs, we believe it deserves a wider audience. Here’s a slightly shortened version of the legendary speech, via Blogging Blue.

Also in the speech, Grothman claimed that the government is forcing businesses to hire women and people of color and thereby attempting to “divide Americans by race.”

“In addition to the unfairness, the reason that will destroy the country is we are telling people they are not Americans,” he said. “And particularly we are telling our new immigrants, when you come here, if you’re from the Philippines, if you’re from Costa Rica, if you’re from Nigeria, if you’re from Pakistan, you should walk around with a chip on your shoulder and ask your government, ‘What are you going to give me, because I’m from the Phillipines?’ and ‘What are you going to give me because I’m from Pakistan?’ and ‘What are you going to give me because I’m from Mexico?’”

Wisconsin Republican state senator Glenn Grothman announced today that he is launching a primary challenge against US Rep. Tom Petri. [Update: On April 11, Petri announced that he would retire]. Grothman has higher national name recognition than your typical state lawmaker because of his record of making outrageous statements and pushing extremist positions. In honor of Grothman’s bid for federal office, we’ve collected ten highlights from his time in the Wisconsin legislature.

1. Claims women earn less because “money is more important for men.”

When Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker repealed the states equal pay law, Grothman explained pay disparties by saying, “You could argue that money is more important for men. I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious. To attribute everything to a so-called bias in the workplace is just not true.”

“Did people even know what homosexuality was in high school in 1975?” he asked. “I don't remember any discussion about that at the time. There were a few guys who would make fun of a few effeminate boys, but that's a different thing than homosexuality…Homosexuality was not on anybody's radar. And that's a good thing.”

He added: “Why sit down with 7th graders and say to some you will be heterosexual, some homosexual? Part of that agenda which is left unsaid is that some of those who throw it out as an option would like it if more kids became homosexuals.”

In the same newsletter, Grothman writes that he “frequently” hears store clerks say that “the people on food stamps eat more generously than people not on food stamps…some may say this is harsh, but we cannot continue to have the single mom buy food that the married clerk at the food store could not afford.”

He also reported complaints that “sometimes apartments available with Section 8 vouchers are superior to apartments people pay for themselves as well as boyfriends illegally staying in these apartments.”

National Journal reports that “in 2011, Grothman sponsored a bill to do away with municipal water disinfection. For context: in 1993, a Cryptosporidiumoutbreak in the Milwaukee area's water supply led to the deaths of at least 69 people.”

Following last week’s Tea Party Unity summit in Texas, TPU head Rick Scarborough convened a conference call today with Howard Kaloogian of the Tea Party Express.

Kaloogian, a former Republican state lawmaker from California, told the Tea Party activists that God is on their side and opposes the work of progressives to reduce income inequality:

I think it’s very important that churches get involved and that Christians follow the dictates of biblical principles in casting their vote. I think it’s clear that God has a position on many of the things we deem political today, from life to theft to the doctrine of covetousness, which by the way seems to be the promotion of the left. You know, they talk about ‘income inequality,’ well what is that but covetousness? So how could somebody support that cause if they’re biblical believing Christians?

Scarborough later claimed that God will “intervene” on behalf of the Tea Party in order to save America from “collapse,” arguing that the 1929 economic crash and the Civil War were both God’s judgment on the nation.

If we do our part then I’m confident that the God of Heaven will intervene. This country has been on the brink of complete disaster and collapse in several occasions in our national history. During the Roaring Twenties, socially this country was on the brink and deserved judgment; go back during the pre-Civil War era when we were buying and selling human beings, we deserved God’s judgment. But there was always a thread of Christians active in politics who didn’t lose sight of the prize and did what they could and God intervened, and that’s what I pray for and work for in this latter period of our national history. No matter what we do, if God doesn’t intervene the country is lost. But I know this, all the prayers in the world won’t change this country and God’s not going to act if those of us who I call the remnant don’t get involved, pay the price, like you’re doing, so I encourage you to continue doing that.

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) may be the fringe operation of a lone anti-immigrant extremist, but hasn’t stopped two Tea Party-backed US Senate candidates from filling out the group’s unhinged candidate survey and seeking its endorsement.

ALIPAC’s president (and sole employee) William Gheen announced today that his group is endorsing Matt Bevin in his bid to unseat Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky and Rob Maness, one of several Republicans running to take on Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu in Louisiana.

Bothcandidates won the “honor” by filling out Gheen’s one-question candidate survey, which asks candidates to choose between “Support[ing] Americans and legal immigrants by support the adequate enforcement of America's existing border and immigration laws as the US Constitution requires” and “Supporting illegal aliens and their supporters by supporting changing existing laws to accommodate millions of illegal immigrants through 'immigration reform' amnesty.”

The attention GOP candidates are giving ALIPAC is especially alarming considering that the group is basically the work of one anti-immigrant extremist that always seems one small donation short of total collapse.

But despite Gheen’s boast that his group “put the brakes on Boehner’s immigration reform push” and his assumption that members of Congress cower in fear of losing his endorsement and being put on his “traitors” list, his organization appears to be running on fumes.

ALIPAC is organized as a political action committee, but according to records on OpenSecrets.org, the group hasn’t contributed to a federal candidate or made an independent expenditure since 2010, when it contributed $2,000 to former congressman J.D. Hayworth’s primary challenge to Sen. John McCain in Arizona, spent another $3,248 in independent expenditures in the race. That year, Gheen’s group also gave small contributions to Tea Party candidates including Sharron Angle in Nevada and Joe Walsh in Illinois. ALIPAC’s spending on behalf of Hayworth’s losing campaign was its most serious election effort since Gheen founded the group in 2004.

Gheen’s reports to the FEC give us an idea of who is base is: Among ALIPAC’s largest donors is Elizabeth Van Staaveren, cofounder of Oregonians for Immigration Reform, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated as a “ nativist extremist group”; and a handful of anti-immigrant activists who lurk in onlinecommentsections.

Gheen regularly exaggerates ALIPAC’s reach and impact. For instance, despite claiming that his Facebook page reaches 195,000 people and that his “effort to circulate social media pictures of Boehner and Obama together” made all the difference in the immigration debate, the picture in question was shared a whopping 14 times on Facebook.

Despite the fact that his organization struggles every quarter to stay open, as well as the fact that he hasn’t been active in a federal election for four years, Gheen is still taken seriously in conservative media, congressional candidates court his endorsement, and his talking points sometimes appear in the mouths of politicians (here’s a video of Gheen and Rep. Steve King agreeing about the supposed threat of violence from undocumented immigrants).

It says a lot that Gheen, who inhabits the fringe of a fringe movement, still manages to garner frequent media appearances and even has congressional candidates seeking his endorsement.

Ferguson told Huffington Post Live that it is “hard for [him] to even comment” on Fischer’s “hilariously ridiculous” remarks, adding: “You have to allow it to roll of your back, as my favorite drag queen Jinkx Monsoon says, ‘water off a duck’s back,’ I try not to get too worked up about those things.”

Miller: One of the most popular shows on television, "Modern Family," and you have the guy from "Married With Children" who is married to a young, attractive Latina woman with a kid from another marriage. You've got the heterosexual couple with the stereotypical family; they're the most challenged or, dare we say, the most screwed-up. And then we have the same-sex male family where we have a man and man in a loving, committed relationship that just doesn't have any, any problems. And apparently the promotion on ABC has allowed this show to be very popular and it does impact people and you have good Christians who turn the other cheek, who don't want to be labeled as intolerant and yet, they don't want these values on the airwaves.

Fischer: What's illustrated there is way that the media influences the way that people think about life. The portrait there that's being presented is designed to make you think that same-sex households are wonderful, they're loving, this is paradise, this is the optimum nurturing environment for children; to make you think that heterosexual marriage is bondage, it's dreary, it's gloomy, and we know that the social research indicates exactly the opposite.

...

You know, that's the danger. It's just like getting a little bit of poison over a long period of time, eventually getting enough accumulation in there where it can be kind of lethal to the organism. And I think that's what you're seeing with a lot of this programming. It has to do with kind of the basic view of morality and marriage and life and family that people have. It's very corrosive; people are just watching TV to be entertained, not realizing that their view of life is being twisted in a way that's very harmful to them and harmful to our culture.

It has been rich with irony that Religious Right activists are simultaneously calling for a boycott of World Vision for its move — since retracted — to recognize gay employees’ spouses while criticizing gay rights advocates who are upset that Mozilla’s new CEO donated to the campaign to repeal marriage equality in California.

WorldNetDaily, which has publishedseveralarticlesattacking World Vision over the matter, today published a column by Phil Elmore criticizing the dating website OKCupid for informing members using the Firefox browser that Mozilla's new CEO, Brendan Eich, donated to the Proposition 8 campaign (OKCupid users on Firefox can still use the browser). “If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal,” the note reads.

Elmore writes that the “progressive mind-control mob” is trying “to establish thoughtcrime” punishments that are “marginalizing and criminalizing any opinion with which they disagree, declaring it ‘hate’ and an assault on ‘rights’ (while denying First Amendment freedom to those they threaten, bully, and hector).”

“If you are a liberal, you have rights. If you are a conservative, you don’t,” he claims, before suggesting that liberals will have their opponents killed: “You must therefore be denigrated, punished and silenced – and that’s only because the libs haven’t yet worked up the courage to murder you. Yet.”

Liberals have invaded your computer and attempted to dictate which browser you may use based on the political incorrectness of a single employee at a single software firm. Specifically, the management of dating site OKCupid has declared Mozilla’s new CEO, Brenden Eich, persona non grata because – GASP! – Eich has dared to exercise his constitutional right to free speech and freedom of religion by donating to political causes he supports (and of which progressives disapprove). Eich donated to California’s Proposition 8, stating his support for the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman (a position held by President “Mom Jeans” Obama until only recently).

…

This definition is no longer good enough for liberals. We saw it when the progressives targeted Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby. In every case, whether the target is high technology or old tradition, the result is the same: Liberals wish to purge from both public and private life any religious conviction or devotion to traditional morality. They do so by marginalizing and criminalizing any opinion with which they disagree, declaring it “hate” and an assault on “rights” (while denying First Amendment freedom to those they threaten, bully, and hector).

What, after all, is Brenden Eich’s crime? He committed no illegal act. He did nothing improper or immoral. He violated no campaign finance laws. He simply expressed an opinion in accordance with how our political system is supposed to work. For daring to do so he is now being punished by an overreaching and unrelentingly “progressive” mind-control mob. This mob seeks, on multiple fronts, to establish thoughtcrime. It seeks to redefine a lack of affirmation for liberal ideas as the active opposition of them. That opposition, in turn, is redefined as illegitimate and as hatred. Conservatives are thus redefined as haters and then consigned to irrelevance in liberal politics (as seen recently in New York, when Gov. Andrew Cuomo told conservatives there was no place in the state for their opinions).

In a “free” country, your government can force you to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, but Muslim cashiers don’t have to check out pork or alcohol. These conclusions are inconsistent because liberals in power believe wholeheartedly in a double standard. If you are a liberal, you have rights. If you are a conservative, you don’t. You are, in fact, an evil, hateful person if you believe in traditional morality or, God help you, Christianity. You must therefore be denigrated, punished and silenced – and that’s only because the libs haven’t yet worked up the courage to murder you.

The GOP’s brazen attempts to politicize the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi are getting even more pathetic, if that’s possible. In an interview with WorldNetDaily today, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said that because ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell’s recent congressional testimony didn’t support her discredited Benghazi conspiracy theories, he must be “taking the fall” for Hillary Clinton and “preserving the chance for Hillary to get elected.”

“[I]f Hillary becomes the next president, he can safely become the next director of the CIA,” Bachmann told the fringe conspiracy website. “That’s what this is all about.”

She suggested that Clinton will in turn appoint Morell to lead the CIA, explaining that is the only reason why Morell didn’t corroborate her conspiracy theory: “The cover story matches the Obama story.”

In an exclusive interview with WND, Bachmann said former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell could be repaid for his efforts by being named head of the CIA if Clinton is elected president.

Bachmann said Morell’s testimony Wednesday before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was the narrative that will be pushed to protect Clinton from any future Benghazi political fallout.

“She couldn’t have a better person to take the fall for her because Morell was involved in rewriting the talking points and was the No. 2 at CIA. So, he can come in authoritatively say, ‘No, that’s not the story. The story is the fake story we tried to push.’”

Bachmann explained to WND that Morell is taking the fall by pointing at underlings and saying he relied on analysts. That way, “he can preserve his status, so, if Hillary becomes the next president, he can safely become the next director of the CIA. That’s what this is all about.”

“They don’t care about Obama now,” she said. “The more important thing is making sure it preserves the way for Hillary, because Democrats can’t afford to be exposed for what they are: failures on foreign policy, defense and intelligence. We have never had a bigger failure than under the Obama administration in any of those areas.”

…

“So, they’re essentially buying out Morell,” Bachmann said. “The cover story matches the Obama story. And all Morell has to do is point to the wrong view of the underlings and say, ‘Well, I was relying on what they told me. The president was relying on his analysts. Hillary Clinton relied on the analysts.’”

…

“Now, its [sic] about preserving the chance for Hillary to get elected. And the only way they can do that is absolve her from any responsibility. And so Morell, who is now in Hillary’s think tank, probably being paid very well, is in cold storage for one reason and one reason only, and that’s to take the fall for Hillary Clinton and clean up any dirt from Obama.”

“For those pushing to undermine all moral restraints and sexual standards, they now have a new ‘hero’ for their cause,” writes BarbWire senior editor Jeff Allen. “And don’t anyone dare try to tell me that the recent efforts to normalize homosexual deviancy won’t have adverse, wide-ranging repercussions.”

“Letting child molesters off the hook is really all about foisting the agenda of sexual autonomy and anarchy upon America,” he adds.

If the pedophiles of our nation were looking for the symbolic “green light” to engage in their heinous, criminal activities, then they most certainly received it from Judge Jan Jurden, the Delaware Superior Court judge who reprehensibly set a vile sexual predator free to roam the streets.

For those pushing to undermine all moral restraints and sexual standards, they now have a new “hero” for their cause. And don’t anyone dare try to tell me that the recent efforts to normalize homosexual deviancy won’t have adverse, wide-ranging repercussions. In fact, I pin most of the blame for America’s moral free fall squarely on the destructive strategies of the militant homosexual activists.

…

So, throw him to the wolves, and maybe people will start realizing that child molesters will not be stomached. Unless, of course, as I suspect, letting child molesters off the hook is really all about foisting the agenda of sexual autonomy and anarchy upon America.

All I can say is that the outraged citizens of Delaware and our entire nation need to rise up and put the brakes on this nation’s rapid descent down the slippery slope. And fast!

Within hours of the Supreme Court issuing its decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, People For the American Way organized a rapid response protest, the first of over 140 that are taking place across the country today.

The protest featured key movement leaders from Congress and a wide range of advocacy organizations, all of whom were outraged about the Roberts Court’s disregard for democratic safeguards, like those gutted in McCutcheon v. FEC.

Emceed by People For the American Way’s Diallo Brooks and concluded by People For’s Drew Courtney, the rally featured Senator Bernie Sanders [VT], Representative Keith Ellison [MN-5], and Representative Ted Deutch [FL-19], as well as Jotaka Eaddy of the NAACP, Michael Russo of US PIRG, Steve Cobble of Free Speech For People, Nick Nyhart of Public Campaign, George Kohl of Communication Workers of America, Miles Rappaport of Common Cause, Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth, and Courtney Hight of the Sierra Club.

Speakers highlighted the problem of “big money” dominating the political process, and discussed the range of solutions--from enacting disclosure and public financing laws to amending the Constitution--that are available to solve it.

Chief Justice Roberts caps his opinion in McCutcheon v. FEC by waxing eloquently about the need to ensure that elected officials are responsive to the people. This and other cases have described campaign contributions as a way to promote such responsiveness. But considering that this case is about a non-constituent buying influence in elections across the country, the passage's repeated references to constituents seems strangely out of place:

For the past 40 years, our campaign finance jurisprudence has focused on the need to preserve authority for the Government to combat corruption, without at the same time compromising the political responsiveness at the heart of the democratic process, or allowing the Government to favor some participants in that process over others. As Edmund Burke explained in his famous speech to the electors of Bristol, a representative owes constituents the exercise of his "mature judgment," but judgment informed by "the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents." Constituents have the right to support candidates who share their views and concerns. Representatives are not to follow constituent orders, but can be expected to be cognizant of and responsive to those concerns. Such responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials. (emphasis added, internal citations removed)

Shaun McCutcheon – whose contributions are at issue in this case – told the Court that he wanted to make contributions of $1,776 to each of more than two dozen different congressional candidates (as well as to various party committees) during the 2012 election cycle. It seems unlikely that he could have been a constituent of more than two dozen different members of Congress.

Obviously, people have a First Amendment right to participate in congressional races outside of where they live. But a stirring paragraph about political responsiveness to constituents hardly seems appropriate in a case that is all about political responsiveness to non-constituents.

In a talk in Salt Lake City this weekend, Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation claimed that same-sex marriage is “an elite luxury good bought for on the backs of the poor.”

He made the comment while discussing U.S. v. Windsor, in which Edith Windsor argued successfully that she was unjustly forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes after her wife’s death because DOMA prevented the government from recognizing their marriage. Anderson absurdly claimed that the media suppressed the facts of the case, and insisted that the solution to Windsor’s problem was simply to repeal the estate tax.

He continued in the same vein, claiming that free markets, rather than nondiscrimination measures, will protect LGBT people from employment and housing discrimination.

Anderson warned that measures protecting LGBT people from housing and employment discrimination will oppress conservatives: “Too often, the nondiscrimination laws are just used as a way of discriminating against those who hold traditional views about marriage.”

“I think, to a certain extent, if you want to protect housing and employment for any person, encourage free markets,” he continued. “Employers want the best employees, regardless of their sexual attractions. A landlord wants the best tenants, regardless of their sexual attractions. It wouldn’t be, in the long run, for a business, profitable to be discriminating against good employees for no reason whatsoever.”

But Anderson wasn’t just concerned with public policy. Later in the talk, an audience member asked about pro-gay “subliminal messaging” in pop culture. “The television show Glee has done just as much to corrupt a young generation about marriage as anything the Supreme Court has done,” he responded.